Are Prominent Blacks Deserting the Liberal Plantation?

4est_4est_Gump

Run Forrest! RUN!
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Posts
89,007
Prominent Blacks Deserting the Liberal Plantation
Rosslyn Smith, American Thinker
June 25, 2013

In the last few months we have seen the rise to national prominence of the conservative Dr. Ben Carson of Maryland, the surprise emergence of Bishop E.W. Jackson as the Republican candidate for Lt. Governor in Virginia, and now Louisiana State Senator Elbert Guillory has switched parties with a video that has gone viral. During this period Republican Congressman Tim Scott also became the junior US Senator from South Carolina. Note, too, that about a year ago former Alabama Congressman Artur Davis switched parties.

The media loves to talk about tokenism when it addresses the issue of black Republicans but there is a tipping point at which this becomes a trend that can't be dismissed, even if the likes of Chris Matthews insist there are currently no blacks in the US Senate.

Two factors may be happening here. Black men -- other than educated elites such as Obama -- have tended to have been treated pretty shabbily by the politically correct elite establishment, especially when they insist on speaking their own minds. Note also that since the 1960s most social spending has been concentrated on programs for women and children. Black women with college degrees now far outnumber black men with college degrees. Unemployment remains a huge problem for black men as does the continuing decline of stable, intact families. One does not have to read very deeply in publication aimed at black audiences to see that the culture wide war on men can be waged with particular nastiness in parts of the black community, due in large part to the disparity in education and career prospects between men and women. While they constantly bemoan the lack of well educated, employed and thus "marriageable" black men, the black women in these publications seldom, if ever, consider reforming a system that has bestowed them with both credentials and highly paid, secure jobs, often on the government payroll.

I noted with some interest that in last year's election the one portion of the black demographic where Obama lost support in percentage terms from 2008 was among black men. This could be significant not just because black men haven't done well under Obama. It's been my experience that men in general are often more willing than women to buck the conventional wisdom.


In the 1940s and 50s, largely young black males in the civil rights movement would ask their elders what has 80 years of loyal support for the party of Lincoln actually gotten our people? The answer too often was a lot of patronizing lip service and not much else ever since a war weary North abandoned Southern Reconstruction and allowed the establishment of Jim Crow. (Yes, Republicans have traditionally supported civil rights but the significant changes only happened when a critical mass of liberal Democrats joined with them after WWII.)


Now we seem to have other black men asking what 60 years of solid support for the Democrats has gotten black voters. And they don't like the answer -- dependency on a government more interested in retaining power than in genuinely helping people.


It took over thirty years for black voters to turn from a reliable Republican voting block to a Democrat monolith. It won't change back overnight, but are we seeing the first cracks in the Democrats' black voting block?

...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/prominent_blacks_deserting_the_liberal_plantation.html

“I used to think the left wing was the home of tolerance, open-mindedness, respect for all viewpoints…
But, now I’ve learned the truth the hard way.

The big lesson for me [working at NPR] was the intolerance of so-called liberals. I say intolerance because I grew up as a black Democrat in Brooklyn, N.Y., and always thought it was the Archie Bunker Republicans who practiced intolerance. My experience at NPR revealed to me how rigid liberals can be when their orthodoxy is challenged. I was the devil for simply raising questions, offering a different viewpoint, not shutting my mouth about the excesses of liberalism — a bad guy, a traitor to the cause.
Juan Williams

"There are a group of people who would like to silence everybody and have everybody go along to get along, but that's not going to be very helpful for us in the long run, in terms of solving our problems. And somebody has to be courageous enough to actually stand up to, you know, the bullies."
Dr. Benjamin Carson
 
Vette has been saying for years that this is happening. He even predicted a much lower level of black support for Obama in 2012. He was completely wrong then and has always been completely wrong on this subject.

What makes you right about it?
 
The Obama campaign is veering toward antinomianism. Since it regards its own motives as pure, it feels it can dispense with the normal rules of accuracy, civility and decency. So we get the political methods of Spiro Agnew combined with the moral self-regard of Woodrow Wilson. It is not an attractive mixture.
Michael Gerson

“Let’s say somebody were [in the White House] and they wanted to destroy this nation, I would create division among the people, encourage a culture of ridicule for basic morality and the principles that made and sustained the country, undermine the financial stability of the nation, and weaken and destroy the military. It appears coincidentally that those are the very things that are happening right now.”
Dr. Ben Carson

Hey merc. White man. STFU kimosabe. :cool:
 
Illegal Immigrant is the new black.



:cool: ( Cheaper by the Dozen )

Democrats put Blacks in the Back of the Bus
Tom Trinko, American Thinker
June 25, 2013

The supporters of legalization for millions of illegal aliens have effectively admitted that the unread bill they support will severely damage the financial situation of low-skilled -- read minority -- youth in America.

Those who support the bill that's being ramrodded through the Senate seem quite content to put blacks in the back of the economic bus; an economic bus already rendered hostile by the collapse of the American economy under Obama.

By adding a new Title V to the bill that provides $1,500,000,000 over the next two years to provide "jobs" for Americans between the ages of 16 to 24, the bills' supporters are admitting that the bill will hurt young workers, especially minorities. Of course these are not real jobs like those found at McDonalds or any other company where the job actually produces a profit and provides a stepping-stone to better jobs in the future. Instead these will be government makework jobs designed to hide the impact of the immigration bill.

Currently the unemployment rate for black Americans is 13.5%, vs. 6.7% for whites, but the rate for black teens is 42.6%, vs. 21.6% for whites. It's clear that the Obama economy has had a very disparate impact on blacks. This is in large part due to the much lower skill levels of blacks than whites.

While 94.4% of whites finish High School only 88.1% of blacks do. Similarly while 39.2% of whites have at least a Bachelors degree only 20.1% of blacks do. There are many theories as to why this gap exists but a likely cause is the horrible state of public education in the inner cities where Democrat politicians and teachers unions work together with little concern for the children they're supposed to serve.

Irrespective of the reason for the horrible black unemployment situation, opponents of the unread immigration bill have pointed out for months that legalizing millions of low-skilled workers who will compete primarily with black Americans for jobs will have a devastating impact on black employment.

Until now those who think that America needs millions of low-skill, lawbreaking, non-English speaking workers more than it needs the English-speaking, law-abiding, and skilled immigrants who are waiting for legal admission to the U.S. have either ignored or rejected concerns about any possible impacts on existing minority Americans their immigration bill may cause.

But by including Title V they've tacitly admitted that yes, blacks will be devastated by this sudden influx of people who will be willing to work in worse conditions and for less pay than blacks.

Given that the whole immigration bill is really just a political ploy -- we know that if illegals were going to vote Republican there would be no huge push for legalizing millions of low skilled workers -- black Americans might want to rethink their political loyalties.
http://www.americanthinker.com/prin...ocrats_put_blacks_in_the_back_of_the_bus.html


;) ;) Hey Marco Rubio... STFU!!!

Republicans have favored school choice for decades. Giving inner city black parents the ability to choose where their children go to school would force the corrupt public education cabals to compete with private schools which have a proven track record of educating inner city blacks. Yet Democrats fight tooth and nail to prevent poor blacks from having a chance at a good education.

Republicans have favored tax breaks for companies that create jobs in the inner city, the sort of jobs that provide the first economic step out of the ghetto, while Democrats have consistently opposed such plans. If Democrats really cared about blacks they'd be for any plan that would help blacks be all they can be. Democrat intransigence may be rooted in the belief by Democrats that if blacks weren't dependent on government handouts they'd be less likely to vote for the welfare party.

Republicans oppose gay marriage, a moral position shared by the majority of blacks, due to their deeply held religious beliefs. Yet President Obama and the Democrat party basically told blacks they didn't care what blacks think by rabidly supporting same-sex marriage.

And now conservative Republicans oppose legalizing millions of lawbreaking illegals while liberals are ecstatic about the prospect of more cheap gardeners. Clearly, given Obama's inaction in the face of obscenely high black unemployment and his support of legalizing a huge pool of people to compete with blacks for jobs, Democrats really don't care about the economic plight of blacks in America.

While America needs immigration reform, rewarding those who break our laws just because Democrats think those lawbreakers will vote Democrat without worrying about the impact of all of these new Americans on black Americans is a clear example of putting party ahead of country.

Instead of trying to woo Hispanics by legalizing millions of welfare-seeking Democrat voters, Republicans should use the Democrats blatant disregard of issues critical to the black community to bring blacks back to the party of Lincoln.

Unlike liberals, conservatives believe that blacks can make it on their own if they weren't hobbled with government paternalism and grossly inadequate educational and economic opportunities. Conservatives know that blacks need a hand not a handout.

Republican support for the current immigration bill will not only not result in Hispanics switching to the Republican party but it will give black Americans no reason to switch to the Republican party even in the face of the Democrats' clear disrespect for black Americans.

Republicans need to offer a vision of immigration reform that does not involve crushing black Americans and that prevents the exploitation of illegal aliens. In doing so they can force the Democrats to make it even more obvious that Democrats take the black vote for granted. Such plans exist but not in the unread bill liberals are trying to push through the Senate.
 
I never quite understood this "planation" politicomeme.

Can someone who is not an idiot explain what the metaphor is supposed to mean in this context?
 
The Obama campaign is veering toward antinomianism. Since it regards its own motives as pure, it feels it can dispense with the normal rules of accuracy, civility and decency. So we get the political methods of Spiro Agnew combined with the moral self-regard of Woodrow Wilson. It is not an attractive mixture.
Michael Gerson

“Let’s say somebody were [in the White House] and they wanted to destroy this nation, I would create division among the people, encourage a culture of ridicule for basic morality and the principles that made and sustained the country, undermine the financial stability of the nation, and weaken and destroy the military. It appears coincidentally that those are the very things that are happening right now.”
Dr. Ben Carson

Hey merc. White man. STFU kimosabe. :cool:



Obama destroyed the military? What?

If conservative blathermouths say it you think it's true. That's who you are. Isn't that right Mr. Birther trash?
 
Classicist Victor Davis Hanson (PJMedia) wonders, what if Obama treated our enemies the way he treats his political enemies...

I cannot recall, in the last five years, Barack Obama ever identifying the Iranians, Hezbollah, or the late Hugo Chavez as among our “enemies,” in the fashion that he once urged Latino leaders to punish conservatives at the polls: “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” If only the president would treat those who don’t like the United States in the same manner that he does those who do, he might bring great clarity to his now listless foreign policy. Indeed, why waste his rich vocabulary of teleprompted invective on fellow Americans, when there is an entire world out there that wishes the United States ill?

Imagine if Obama declaimed of the Iranians in Tehran that “those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values,” in the manner he once attacked John McCain for calling for border security in 2008. Could not a worldly Obama at least go after the intolerant Saudis for spreading Wahhabi-hatred worldwide and for sending subsidies to radical Sunni terrorists, in the detailed way he once deconstructed rural conservative voters of Pennsylvania? He might have taken apart these dogmatic religious absolutists in the following manner: “It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” All such invective seems to sum up current Saudi society far better than it does the people of Pennsylvania. Could not the president finish by noting that their madrassas encourage divisions and discourage cooperation, just as he boldly lectured an Irish audience about the problems with Catholic parochial schools?

As far as these hyper-rich Persian Gulf sheikdoms go, could not the fearless Obama urge these “fat cats” to share their riches with poorer countries, in the manner he once sermonized to Americans in no uncertain terms: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”?

When Obama deals with the Palestinians, could he not say of them, as he once did without hesitation of the Republican Congress, “Even though most people agree … I’m presenting a fair deal, the fact that they don’t take it means that I should somehow do a Jedi mind-meld with these folks and convince them to do what’s right”? Of the Gaza flotilla incident that was used against ally Israel, Obama at least could offer one of his accustomed blunt retorts like “there is no there there,” as he did to his own domestic critics of Benghazi. Or better yet, he could have flipped it off as a “sideshow.”

Trouble in Syria? Tough Chicagoan Obama should warn Assad that America was bringing a gun to a knife fight, or that Americans were going to get in the faces of their enemies, just as the street-fighting candidate Obama once urged his supporters to confront Republicans.

Of natural disasters in Pakistan, the historically minded president might also see it as a metaphor of a sick society, in the way he said of Katrina that the hurricane catastrophe “was a powerful metaphor of what’s gone on for generations.” Greece is in shambles, its socialist/siesta culture unsustainable. If the candid president is going to lecture Americans with “we’ve been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades,” and with “this is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft and we didn’t have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades. We need to get back on track,” then perhaps he might extend that tough love to the bankrupt Greeks as well.

Egypt? Could not no-nonsense Obama say of Mohamed Morsi and his destruction of that country that he “was acting stupidly,” in the fashion he did with the Cambridge Police Department? Could not Attorney General Eric Holder be enlisted to talk down to the Libyans, who will not turn over the killers of our government personnel, by claiming they are abject “cowards”? Many Islamists in Nigeria are slaughtering Christians; could not an empathetic Obama express solidarity with the victims the way he did so poignantly with Trayvon Martin: “If I had a son, he’d look like a slain Christian Nigerian”?

Speaking of Christians, might Obama order his NASA chief to praise Christians for their contributions to civilization, in the manner Charles Bolden was ordered to redirect NASA’s mission to Muslim outreach: “Third, and perhaps foremost, he [Obama] wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering”)?

Perhaps Obama could teach the grasping and cash-rich Chinese that now is not the time for them to profit and that at some point their rapacious international companies should cease the money-making, in the same manner he instructed Americans: “I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” The Chinese are said to have the dirtiest air and water on the planet – might a green Obama remonstrate with them about their duty to planet Earth, in the way that he damned his Republican opponents for wanting to “have dirtier air, dirtier water”?

To a hostile Vladimir Putin — reported to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars — the statist Obama might remark that the Russian leader did not build his fortune, at least not without the help of the state. Or more directly, civil-rights organizer Obama might remind polite society of the often-bigoted Putin that he was “a typical white person,” in the manner he once derided his own grandmother. If only Putin was BP, Obama would have him worried about the president musing over “whose ass to kick.”

Obama could also from time to time enlist First Lady Michelle Obama as well. She would be wonderful in courageously reminding a bullying China that it is “just downright mean.” To the corrupt United Nations, a no-holds-barred Michelle could confront its members by reminding them that she had never before been proud of that organization. Perhaps to the Europeans who piggy-back on American defense expenditures, the tough-love first lady might remonstrate as she did with American voters: “Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

Turning to more concrete action, the IRS has global reach. Could it not turn on Hezbollah the way it has gone after the Tea Party?

Instead of inflammatory language like “patriots” and “tea party,” might the agency fixate on “terrorism” and “jihad”? And just as the FBI did not detain Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Major Hasan, or Anwar al-Awlaki after these suspects came to their attention, could it not finally let go of the poor video-maker Mark Basseley Youssef, innocent of inciting the al-Qaeda related terrorists in Benghazi?

For that matter, if controversial films are supposedly catalysts to hate-filled violence, could not the exasperated Obama condemn his powerful friend Recep Erdogan for airing on Turkish state television the anti-Semitic and anti-American Valley of the Wolves? Was not the multimillion-dollar slick Turkish production that played throughout the Islamic world more detrimental to U.S. interests than Youssef’s cheap video farce?

The Associated Press and James Rosen are small-fry leakers in comparison to the things al Jazeera says about America. Why not monitor that new agency’s phone banks, or perhaps even the parents of al Jazeera reporters? If Obama goes after Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fox News by name, cannot he conjure up at least something like his earlier slur “teabaggers” for the anti-American Islamist media?

Is al Jazeera all that less subversive than Fox News? If EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson can use a fake name and adopt a phony alter ego to evade accountability from her domestic critics, can’t our own government operatives do that abroad to confuse Islamists? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius shook down American companies to pony up money to promote Obamacare; can’t she similarly coerce our allies to help pay more for the joint venture in Afghanistan?
 
Look at what NPR did to Juan Williams.


Look what the Left does to other conservative African-Americans. And it is just not by race! Oh hell no, it is gender too!

Look what they did to the Palin Family...


Contemporary leftists, on the other hand, view their opponents as people you send off to the Gulag, unworthy of any respect, deserving of any kind of low blow, no matter how foul. So you accuse Goldwater of insanity, slander Justice Thomas as a sexual monster, casually publish plays, books, and films calling for the assassination of President Bush, and assault the first serious Republican female candidate at her weakest point -- her family. And of course, you scream to high heaven if any form of turnabout occurs in your direction, as in the case of the Obama family, which was declared "off limits" early in the presidential campaign, at the same time that Palin's family was being stretched on the media rack.

This style of political loathing has become effectively innate. It has been systemized to such a degree as to become integral. Modern liberalism cannot do without it. An entire structure has been erected on the basis of political hatred, and from that structure a whole new strategy has arisen.

J.R. Dunn
 
Look at what NPR did to Juan Williams.


Look what the Left does to other conservative African-Americans. And it is just not by race! Oh hell no, it is gender too!

Look what they did to the Palin Family...


Contemporary leftists, on the other hand, view their opponents as people you send off to the Gulag, unworthy of any respect, deserving of any kind of low blow, no matter how foul. So you accuse Goldwater of insanity, slander Justice Thomas as a sexual monster, casually publish plays, books, and films calling for the assassination of President Bush, and assault the first serious Republican female candidate at her weakest point -- her family. And of course, you scream to high heaven if any form of turnabout occurs in your direction, as in the case of the Obama family, which was declared "off limits" early in the presidential campaign, at the same time that Palin's family was being stretched on the media rack.

This style of political loathing has become effectively innate. It has been systemized to such a degree as to become integral. Modern liberalism cannot do without it. An entire structure has been erected on the basis of political hatred, and from that structure a whole new strategy has arisen.

J.R. Dunn


And the fact that African Americans are more strongly Democratic than ever proves your entire theory wrong. This shouldn't even be a thread.
 
The technique of these parties is based on the division of society into producers and consumers. They are also wont to make use of the usual hypostasis of the state in questions of fiscal policy that enables them to advocate new expenditures to be paid out of the public treasury without any particular concern on their part over how such expenses are to be defrayed, and at the same time to complain about the heavy burden of taxes.
The other basic defect of these parties is that the demands they raise for each particular group are limitless. There is, in their eyes, only one limit to the quantity to be demanded: the resistance put up by the other side. This is entirely keeping with their character as parties striving for privileges on behalf of special interests. Yet parties that follow no definite program, but come into conflict in the pursuit of unlimited desires for privileges on behalf of some and for legal disabilities for others, must bring about the destruction of every political system.

Ludwig von Mises
 
I see from the thread title that wishful thinking is alive and well. That's nice, for optimism is a charming characteristic. And seeing a lone event and calling it a trend is, um, well, slightly desperate.:rolleyes:
 
merc you must admit that after raking thru the verbiose morass of this thread there are a few salient points... black unemployment is rather high, and obama ostensibly hasn't done much to address it. and giving amnesty to immigrants *could* have quite an effect.

your thoughts?
 
I see from the thread title that wishful thinking is alive and well. That's nice, for optimism is a charming characteristic. And seeing a lone event and calling it a trend is, um, well, slightly desperate.:rolleyes:

The Chief has made quite a career out of taking a single data point and declaring a "trend".

Teh small sample is his bestie friend.
 
I see from the thread title that wishful thinking is alive and well. That's nice, for optimism is a charming characteristic. And seeing a lone event and calling it a trend is, um, well, slightly desperate.:rolleyes:

I ask a question.

As Pete points out, there is a lot of truth there.

We are seeing a Democrat pandering to the Hispanics that underscores the effects they have had on every group that they pander to.
 
I ask a question.

As Pete points out, there is a lot of truth there.

We are seeing a Democrat pandering to the Hispanics that underscores the effects they have had on every group that they pander to.

Well, I would point out that the Republicans are doing they're damnedest to pander as well. They just do it badly.:)
 
I ask a question.

As Pete points out, there is a lot of truth there.

We are seeing a Democrat pandering to the Hispanics that underscores the effects they have had on every group that they pander to.

Poor AJ wants him a wedge to drive between core Democratic constituencies, and he's not about to let pesky little things like 'facts' get in the way of his jihad.
 
merc you must admit that after raking thru the verbiose morass of this thread there are a few salient points... black unemployment is rather high, and obama ostensibly hasn't done much to address it. and giving amnesty to immigrants *could* have quite an effect.

your thoughts?

Illegal immigrants are already working. That's the whole purpose of them being here. If they keep working I don't see how it will change much. And I doubt Obama will get much blame even if there is some kind of impact.

The CBO said in the short term unemployment would probably go up slightly, sounds about right. But the short term is the short term.

Every few months the conservative blogosphere lights up with a new reason that Black people are going to stop supporting Obama and or five years running zero of their predictions have panned out. I see no reason why this time will be any different. These are just things that conservatives tell themselves to make each other feel better.
 
I never quite understood this "planation" politicomeme.

Can someone who is not an idiot explain what the metaphor is supposed to mean in this context?

Contrary to conventional wisdom and revisionist history blacks did pretty okay on the plantations; their material and existential needs were provided regardless of circumstances. Blacks made out much better than whites most of the time. They couldn't go anywhere but there was no where to go. They couldn't read or write but neither could most whites. And they didn't go to jail.

The modern welfare state adopted plantation practices.
 
Prominent Blacks Deserting the Liberal Plantation...

I don't expect black Americans to become Republicans but there's no reason they should support the Democraps at rates of 90-95%. That's absurd. No group of people in the world all think the same to rates of that level. I'm sure not all black Americans support the entire gay agenda or unlimited abortion on demand through the ninth month of pregnancy or excessive tax rates or whatever issue you can't disagree with the liberal wing of that party on and be taken seriously by it yet they keep voting for it by ridiculously overwhelming numbers. I'm sure the racial issue is a huge part of life for blacks, but there should be a multi-party system with say, a more moderate party that supports black issues without being so extreme on values or economics or whatever. The Democraps just take these voters for granted.
 
I don't expect black Americans to become Republicans but there's no reason they should support the Democraps at rates of 90-95%. That's absurd. No group of people in the world all think the same to rates of that level. I'm sure not all black Americans support the entire gay agenda or unlimited abortion on demand through the ninth month of pregnancy or excessive tax rates or whatever issue you can't disagree with the liberal wing of that party on and be taken seriously by it yet they keep voting for it by ridiculously overwhelming numbers. I'm sure the racial issue is a huge part of life for blacks, but there should be a multi-party system with say, a more moderate party that supports black issues without being so extreme on values or economics or whatever. The Democraps just take these voters for granted.

You're absolutely right about it.

The voting pattern doesn't make sense for no other reason than the size of the Christian, church going, African American community. They can't agree with the Democratic social agenda.
 
Back
Top